Joel B. Brown

The case concerned a defendant indicted on counts of grand larceny and embezzlement for taking $3,500 from a victim under the pretense of purchasing stock but instead issuing a note and converting the funds. The jury convicted her of embezzlement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, holding that embezzlement is a statutory offense overlapping with larceny or false pretenses, and a conviction stands if its elements—lawful possession via trust followed by fraudulent conversion—are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even when elements of other crimes are also present. The evidence was deemed sufficient for the jury to find those elements, including that the victim retained title to the money and the note was merely a device to conceal the scheme.

criminal law

The case was a common law libel action brought by plaintiff James A. McCollum against the Birmingham Post Co. over a 1949 newspaper article. After the defendant initiated a separate statutory proceeding to perpetuate the plaintiff's testimony as a witness, and the plaintiff did not respond, the trial court dismissed the libel suit. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the dismissal on appeal, holding that the perpetuation proceeding was distinct from the underlying action and that failure to participate in it did not justify dismissing the plaintiff's case. The court also confirmed that the appeal was timely filed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a petition for certiorari filed in the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Appeals in Shouse v. State. The Supreme Court declined to grant the writ, following its settled rules that bar review of factual questions or the application of law to facts found by the lower court unless the opinion states the facts fully and shows an erroneous legal application. The same limits apply to claims of error without injury and to judgments supported by any evidence. The Court of Appeals had adequately addressed and correctly resolved the issues raised about admission and exclusion of testimony and refusal of requested instructions, so the petition was denied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a will contest in which Jacob W. Hornaday, Jr. challenged the probate of his father's will on grounds that his brother Paul had fraudulently induced the testator to exclude the contestant by making false representations about the contestant's conduct toward their mother and about the contestant's handling of the testator's estate. The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's order sustaining demurrers to the contestant's pleas alleging fraud. The court held that the pleas were legally insufficient because they failed to allege with particularity a false statement of material fact that was known to be false or made under circumstances creating a legal duty to know the truth, or that was a material inducement to the will's execution. The decision rested on the principle that fraud sufficient to invalidate a will requires deliberate false representations or equivalent circumstances, and vague or conclusory allegations do not meet that standard.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case was a wrongful death suit under Alabama's Homicide Act brought by the personal representative of Geneva Jackson against Pike Taxi Company, alleging that its employee negligently drove a taxi that struck and killed her as a pedestrian at a Mobile intersection. The jury returned a $5,000 verdict for the plaintiff after hearing conflicting testimony about traffic lights, directions of travel, and whether either party was negligent. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for a directed verdict and the exclusion of a police accident report (which state law barred from use as evidence), but it reversed the judgment because two special jury charges improperly invaded the jury's province by deviating from the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved D.C. Littlefield's conviction in circuit court for criminal false pretense under Alabama Code § 209, Title 14, for obtaining a county warrant by falsely claiming that Robert Connell had furnished lumber worth $83.72 to Chilton County. Littlefield appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment after finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no merit in his claim that the state needed to disprove his own supply of the lumber. On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied review, explaining that the indictment's averments rendered the defendant's furnishing of lumber irrelevant to the charged offense and that the Court of Appeals' factual findings are not subject to reexamination on certiorari.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wife's 1949 petition for divorce from bed and board under Alabama Code Title 34 §§ 36 and 37 on grounds of the husband's actual or threatened violence, along with requests for temporary and permanent support, attorney fees, and related relief. The circuit court entered a decree incorporating the parties' agreement granting the husband exclusive use and control of real estate titled in the wife's name or jointly, transferring certain assets to her, ordering $225 monthly payments, and later modifying the decree to deny further support on the basis of an equitable property division. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the statutes authorize allowances to the wife out of the husband's estate but do not permit divesting the wife of her property and transferring it to the husband. The court reasoned that no statutory authority existed for such a transfer and that it was not within the reserved power to modify alimony awards.

family lawproperty

This case involved a divorced husband petitioning the court to terminate his alimony obligations under a 1943 divorce decree, citing changed circumstances including his ex-wife's earnings from employment and the marriage and self-sufficiency of their adult daughter. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decree relieving the husband of further payments. The court reasoned that the evidence showed material changes in the parties' conditions since the original decree, with the ex-wife now more self-sustaining and the child no longer dependent, and concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in modifying the alimony award. The opinion noted that future proceedings could address any renewed claims based on subsequent changes.

family law

The case involved nineteen complainants, including resident taxpayers and merchants in Dadeville, Alabama, and two individuals in the city's police jurisdiction, who challenged Ordinance No. 192 imposing a privilege or license tax equal to one-half of one percent of gross retail sales, in addition to other taxes. The bill sought a declaration that the ordinance was void and an injunction against its enforcement, alleging it functioned as an unauthorized consumer sales tax, was excessive and confiscatory, and lacked required licensing features. The circuit court sustained the city's demurrer and dismissed the bill. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance levied a valid privilege tax authorized by state statute rather than a consumer sales tax, that the tax amount was presumptively valid absent specific facts showing excessiveness, and that the complainants' payments under protest did not alter the legal conclusions on the purely legal questions presented.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case was a statutory action to quiet title to rental property in Birmingham, Alabama, between complainants claiming ownership through long-term possession and tax payments and the City of Birmingham, which asserted absolute title acquired via a 1925 public sale for delinquent street improvement assessments. The trial court initially ruled for the city, but on appeal the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment quieting title in the complainant. The court reasoned that the city had for over a decade continued to recognize the complainants as owners by levying taxes and requiring them to pay for sanitary connections, rendering it inequitable for the city to claim title, and that municipalities lack authority to hold such income-producing property as an investment.

propertyproceduretaxes

The case involved restaurant owners in territory annexed by the Town of Notasulga through a 1951 local act that incorporated part of Lee County (a wet county) into the town's limits, which otherwise spanned the dry Macon County. The owners, previously licensed under state ABC laws to sell beer, challenged a town ordinance imposing an additional license tax on such sales in the annexed area, arguing it conflicted with general state law under Title 29 of the Code and was therefore unconstitutional. The trial court sustained the town's demurrer to the complaint, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Section 17 of Title 29 expressly authorizes municipalities to levy reasonable privilege taxes on restaurants holding state permits, provided the ordinance does not apply to dry territory. The court interpreted the ordinance's savings clause to limit its reach to the newly annexed wet area and rejected claims that it was arbitrary or exceeded statutory bounds.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case involved a challenge by The Advertiser Co., publisher of two Alabama newspapers, to a use tax assessment by the state Department of Revenue on machinery and equipment used in its printing plant. The taxpayer argued that the items were exempt under Code of 1940, Tit. 51, § 789(p) as machines used in processing or manufacturing tangible personal property. The circuit court vacated the assessment in part, finding that the company's operations—including composing, stereotyping, casting plates from mats, and transforming newsprint into finished newspapers—constituted substantial manufacturing, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the use tax complements the sales tax to prevent evasion but that the statutory exemption is broad and applies here because the equipment was necessary and customarily used in the manufacturing process.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a conviction for forgery in the second degree based on an indictment charging the forgery of a sale ticket or memorandum, which was undated and did not appear signed. The petitioner argued that the indictment was insufficient because it lacked extrinsic facts showing the document's capacity to deceive or defraud, potentially making the offense forgery in the third degree instead. The court held that the single-count indictment did not support the conviction, as the instrument was not facially valid for forgery purposes under the relevant statute without averments of such facts. Relying on precedents requiring sufficient averments in the indictment for penal statutes, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action under Alabama's Homicide Act brought by the personal representative of Howard Bell against Riley Bus Lines and Herrington Motor Company and Truck Lines, alleging that concurrent negligence by the bus and truck operators caused Bell's death in a collision. The jury returned a verdict finding for the plaintiff but apportioning damages separately against each defendant rather than in a single lump sum. The trial court granted a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed that order, holding that the statute authorizes recovery of damages as assessed by the jury but does not permit apportionment among joint tortfeasors and that established practice requires a single verdict against all liable parties.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved buyers who, responding to an ad for a 45-acre property, were directed by the seller to an agent who pointed out a single contiguous tract including a house; they purchased the land, made improvements, and later discovered the deed described two non-contiguous parcels totaling about 45 acres, one of which was landlocked with no access. The buyers filed a bill in equity to rescind the sale for misrepresentation by the seller's authorized agent, offered to account for use and improvements, and sought to enjoin transfer of the purchase-money notes and mortgage. The court affirmed the equity court's rulings overruling the seller's demurrer and motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, reasoning that a principal is liable for an agent's fraud within the scope of authority, the buyers acted promptly within a year of discovering the fraud, and the misrepresentation supported rescission while preserving the status quo via injunction.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is a statutory ejectment action over title to a 40-acre tract of timber land in Lamar County, Alabama. The plaintiff claimed title through a 1926 deed, while the defendant relied on a tax deed from a prior sale. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, finding the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser without notice of any unrecorded deed and that tax records supported the defendant's claim. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax sale proceedings were void because the required statutory notice was not properly given to the assessed nonresident owner in the correct precinct, rendering the tax deed ineffective to convey title. The court remanded the case after finding the trial judge erred in overruling objections to the tax records and in directing the verdict.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case involved beneficiaries of a trust suing the surviving trustee bank and corporate officers/directors of Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Company, alleging that excessive compensation paid to two officers (including a large bonus) constituted waste of corporate assets, influenced by the bank's self-interest in banking relationships. The circuit court sustained demurrers to the amended bill and dismissed it. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bill lacked equity because corporate wrongs must be pursued by the corporation or its stockholders, the payments were ratified by majority stockholders without alleged fraud or willful neglect, and there were no facts showing loss to the trust or violation of the trust terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a conviction for driving while intoxicated under Alabama law, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The petitioner sought review, arguing that a witness with only slight opportunity for observation should not have been allowed to testify about the driver's condition. The court held that such limited observation affects the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, applying an established exception to the rule against opinion testimony when facts cannot be fully reproduced for the jury. It further noted that the events were part of the res gestae of the offense. The writ of certiorari was denied, upholding the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

Jefferson County sought to build a large activated sludge sewage treatment plant in a Birmingham B Residence District zoned under the city's 1944 comprehensive ordinance, which listed permitted uses such as dwellings, hotels, hospitals, educational institutions, and accessory uses but did not include sewage plants. The county petitioned the circuit court in equity, arguing that the plant qualified as an accessory use, that zoning restrictions did not apply to its governmental functions under Amendment LXXIII, and that the ordinance was otherwise invalid or preempted by statute. The trial court denied the petition, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance's explicit limits on B-district uses controlled, that governmental status did not exempt the county from valid zoning in this context, and that the restrictions did not conflict with constitutional or statutory authority. The court distinguished tort-liability precedents treating sewage operations as governmental and upheld the city's power to exclude the facility from the residential zone.

property

The case involved Ingalls Iron Works Company, a Delaware corporation based in Alabama, filing a bill against one of its three stockholders, Robert I. Ingalls, Jr., seeking specific performance of a 1943 option contract that gave the company the right to purchase all of his stock at a fixed price, along with court guidance on the company's rights to use stock it held as trustee under the contract. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer on grounds that the bill lacked equity and dismissed the case; the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. Interpreting the full contract—including its preamble recitals—along with the surrounding circumstances and related options executed by other family stockholders, the court concluded that the option matured only upon the stockholder's voluntary retirement or death, not upon forced removal from corporate office, and that the corporation acted merely as bailee or trustee to prevent stock from leaving the family. The court held that the events necessary to trigger the option had not occurred, rendering the bill without equity in both aspects and incapable of amendment to state a claim.

business & regulatory